User talk:Otto4711

Barnstars

grab the rope!

		The XfD Rescue Barnstar
		Hi Otto. =) Your very competent argumentation saved Category:Vegetarians from deletion. Thanks for being a CfD "first responder". — coelacan talk — 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well

That RFA was surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous WP:KETTLEs. Sorry for putting you through that, it was entirely not what I suspected. Here's one for not giving up.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		>Radiant< 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor's barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Eyrian, am happy to present you with this editor's barnstar, for your tireless excellent work in trimming the trivial fat. --Eyrian 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

feel free to move this to userspace...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, VanTucky, award you, Otto4711, this Deletionist's Barnstar for your fine work in removing listcruft and original research from the Film noir article. VanTucky (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		is hereby awarded to Oto4711 for diligence above and beyond the call of duty in finding instances of overcategorization and nominating them for deletion with well-reasoned and appropriately-referenced arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me laugh by creating Cowsay as a redirect to Moo with the edit summary created redirect to answer the question "what's a cowsay?" BencherliteTalk 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For Otto4711 for José Sarria. Wikipedia needs many more GAs on drag queens. Congratulations. Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Willi Ninja

On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willi Ninja, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Judy Garland as gay icon

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Judy Garland as gay icon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fighting Tommy Riley

On 31 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Tommy Riley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbette (performer)

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbette (performer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

José Sarria

On 29 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Sarria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Starved

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Starved, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Our World (American TV series)

On 14 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Our World (American TV series), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of special characters

Why when I edit articles do special characters (arrows, accented characters) sometimes suddenly spontaneously turn into question marks? See for example Treasure Hunters (TV series) in which a minor edit by me nowhere near any of them caused every arrow and accented character on the page to mutate. Otto4711 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely the browser you're using, or the character encoding that your browser is using at the moment. Have you tried changing the encoding to Unicode UTF-8? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing card symbols

Trying to insert card suit symbols into The Cincinnati Kid and it's not working. I used the notation in the article Yoshio Nakano as my guide and I thought I did it right, but apparently not. Otto4711 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you need the semicolons: ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠ (or, ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠). =D Luna Santin 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Heap

Good comics history, man! Kudos on your edits here! -- Tenebrae 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Otto4711-

1. Thanks for the work on Male prostitution in the arts.
2. I noticed that you removed comments on a few films... why?
3. Please remember to use edit summaries.

Thanks and keep up the good work- NYArtsnWords 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Superhero television programs

One problem with your freshly created category is that some eligible items under the DC Comics and Marvel Comics subcategories are not about superheroes. MadTV (based on the DC Comics publication Mad) is not a superhero program. Men in Black (from a company owned by Marvel Comics) is not a superhero program. Doczilla 08:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Smile!

Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Wel done on your recent edits to the Wicked article - I think there's still a lot to be done though!-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

comment of the day (uhh, my awards review process takes a week, see)

donkeylol

"Because only a jackass..." aaaaaahhhahahahaahaha you slayed me, Otto. It's a good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. — coelacan talk — 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Death By Gluten Afd

Death By Google - what a classic, by far the best Afd quote I have ever seen!! Keep it up ;-) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CFDs

Hey Otto4711 - We sometimes disagree on the CFDs but I wanted to say I appreciate you persistently making relevant points on the current LGBT-related CFDs. I'm really going to stay out of it as much as possible because I feel, strongly, that the CFDs are getting bogged down with a lot of people making nominations to make a point, or to implement their personal philosophies about the significance of particular identities. Nevertheless, even though I'm feeling frustrated with wikipedia process right now, I had resolved previously to give props to people when I could. Best, lquilter 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Time For Regis!

Otto, aside from Be Bold, there are stips to not remove the AfD banner from the page. Should I just redirect and nuke the AfD, or let it go? --Dennisthe2 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not a vandal.

Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. Acalamari 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded with: Listen, I'm sorry if I've been incivil. It wasn't my intention. I hope in the future we can work peacefully. I made a mess of the situation that just happened. I am sorry.

I should also add: I should have been more specific. I was foolish in making that error. Acalamari 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are decimating Wikipedia

Hello...I'd just like to let you know that you are decimating Wikipedia by nominating any and all categories that you can find for deletion. You and 2-3 people end up deleting hundreds of categories that many people have worked on for a long time, not in the least limited to many of the TV show and family categories. I'd advise you to please end your deletion-mania. --172.164.242.170 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TPIR pricing games

What I was hoping to accomplish is to get people actually working towards something instead of just talking. AfD can have that effect: it's a debate, everyone debates, but often people are overly hesitant to take action. I agree, there was some discussion of a retired vs. non-retired solution but that didn't have consensus either, clearly. Hopefully if a discussion can be had where the point is how best to organize the articles, then that can be properly addressed. But none of the hoping for merging will go anywhere if no one actually puts together the more general articles. IMO, that can be done, at first, without redirecting the individual game articles. (BTW, I don't, myself, think the retired vs. non-retired idea is the best. Why wouldn't a simple break-up alphabetically be the best idea? Eg List of The Price is Right pricing games (A-H), et cetera.) Mangojuice^talk 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One thought: some of the games seem to have changed over time, whereas others have "retired version" and "unretired version"s. To me, that distinction seems a little arbitrary. So there might be some overlap among the lists. Good luck. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Mangojuice is getting confused over Bullseye and Balance Game...there are actually two pricing games with each of these titles, none of which have anything to do with one another.

By the way, nice work combining all the retired games into one page. I think it looks good. -TPIRFanSteve 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Chasing down CFDs

Thanks for listing so many connected categories after I nominated the Sean Connery one. I'm impressed with your thoroughness - you nominated all of the ones that I thought were suspect. --GargoyleMT 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Otto, I have been seeing some of your contributions of late and on digging a little deeper I find that you are not an admin nor apparently has your nomination ever been raised, despite your ample record. So: would you be interested in a nomination? Please feel free to email me. (Btw, you may wish to archive your talk page - getting a bit long...) Eusebeus 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you might want to consider archiving your talk page.

• My earnest and sincere apologies; I should have been more diligent in reviewing the above before bringing it up. I can see why you don't want to go through that shit again. The level of abuse you received was totally ridiculous and disheartening. Moreover, based on what I saw, you were essentially sandbagged by a less-than-stellar cast of characters. Eusebeus 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  PS - I should archive my talk page, but as I'm involved in an outstanding RfC and the evidence was placed on my page, I don't want to bury it in an archive until the matter is resolved).

I love the...

Thank you so much for taking care of the I love the... mergers. I planned on doing that eventually but don't have a lot of time. You're a wikisaint. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day...

...that you and I were on the same side of an argument. Where are these intellectuals when the subject is "Running jokes in Friends"? Best wishes Mandsford 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

if you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday), I just agreed with both of you. The world may indeed be changing. DGG (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you both sound so surprised. Even a blind pig finds the occasional truffle so of course y'all are going to get an AFD right eventually.  ;-) Otto4711 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Index of deleted categories ...

You may find this useful at some point ... User:ProveIt/index. Feel free to add stuff you think is appropriate... It came out of a discussion I had with Sam at the last meetup. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Judy Garland Show on hold

Hey, the article is on hold. Please see the talkpage for further details. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the article has passed. See the talk page for details. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is for if you want to show off your work on the page. Feel free to display this userbox anywhere on your userpage, {{User Good Article|The Judy Garland Show}} Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Relocated comment

Otto4711 I am trying to figure out how to communicate with you regarding your reporting me to spam and the deletion of my edits. Please see the facts I list are valid and I have links to the source. As well the usage of the word "Gay" is used on my page in description of movies and is appropriate for the subject Ryan Idol. Not all information listed is flattering to myself nor should the facts be hidden from the reader to make a image appear something he or it is not. These are Gay Movies he is in and his name is known in the gay adult movies not heterosexual. Please contact me at charles@charlespeyton.com or through the wikipedia site. I am sorry if this is no the proper way to get you a message but I have tried many other ways and have received no communication back. thanks charlespeyton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Priceless!

your addition of material to Friend of Dorothy gave my partner and me a wonderful laugh this evening. Thanks for such good editing! Jeffpw (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein - is it time?

First of all, congratulations on your excellent work so far on the article. I'm rather impressed. I was wondering if you think that it might be time to give it the FAC push? If not, is there anything resource or assistance-wise that WP:FILMS can do to be of additional help? Many thanks and keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wasn't planning on doing any major additional work on the article but I would absolutely support going for FA. To get it there I think it needs a bit more on the production, especially an expansion of Kenneth Strickfaden's role and perhaps more about the visual effects, along with an expansion of the critical and popular response section to trace the growth of the film's reputation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland

Hi Otto, Never be afraid of being accused of ownership issues, especially if you can back up your viewpoint. I wouldn't worry about it - just do what you think best. The filmograpy thing - yes, I see your point. I'm in the middle of commenting at FAC. I think it could be renamed to make it clearer, but I did make that change initially so that it would appear in the TOC and be easier to find. That seems to be the norm, and is supported by project guidelines, and I was also thinking that if someone as experienced as Meltygirl was confused by it, the average casual visitor would miss it completely. I think renaming the section, or having a short (one or two sentence) intro to explain it, would be much better than putting it into the "see also" section. I think it tends to get overlooked there. I saw this as a quick fix, but I agree that it's not exactly right. What do you think? Really good article, by the way, and well worth giving an push to get it to FA status. If you've been the main contributor, I have to say you've done a great job. Rossrs (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

Please don't be discouraged: GA is a bouncing around kind of process. That is how an individual list and delist process reaches consensus. However, if you really care about Dante's Cove, please keep it on your watchlist: you would then have seen the GAR nomination. Geometry guy 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Take the delisting in the right spirit. Now that the short-comings of the article are pointed out, the delisting is an opportunity for the editors to improve it more, and one day reach FA status. Good luck improving the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

time to see if consensus has changed?

Hi Otto -- I was looking at the Time Magazine Person of the Year category. I missed your effort to CFD / delete it in the summer, but there's a template now -- was there one when you did that CFD initially? If not, that might make a difference; I still think that it's a ridiculous category. At any rate, what do you think is a reasonable time period to pass before checking to see if consensus has shifted? One doesn't want to waste anybody's time. A year? More? Less? --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on nominating it again any time soon but would support a deletion nomination if made. Otto4711 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lair and Dante's Cove.

Besides the apearance of both Colin and Thom on Dante's Cove we have more evidences that both happen at the same universe.

1. Both series take place on a town on a island

2. On The Lair 102 Colin tells Frankie that they have been expelled by the Avatar. Avatar is the same term used to refer to some Tresum witches.

3. The drug "Saint" is shown in both series.

4. On Dante's Cove 303 Adam tells Grace that they can obtain the Star Flower (Tresum name for Saint) at The Lair. This "The Lair" is the same sex club where Colin and Thom make their cameos. This last item can be checked if you watch Dante's Cove 303 Clip 2 at http://www.heretv.com/AVideoPage.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.111.246 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• There has been no explicit statement that the two shows take place in the same fictional universe. The Lair was originally planned as a spin-off from DC but those plans were scrapped. Absent a statement in a reliable source that the two shows are in the same universe, assuming that they are is original research. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lair vs Dylan Vox inconsistency inside wikipedia

If you claim that setting The Lair in the same universe of Dante's Cove is OR I suggest you edit the first paragraph at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lair#Connections_to_Dante.27s_Cove

where it is stated that they DO share the same universe. Nevertheless, at teh end of that very section a doubt is raised about this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.111.246 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I mis-typed here. Yes, the two shows do take place in the same fictional universe. That does not mean that the two Colins are intended to be the same character. There has been nothing on Dante's Cove that indicates that the Colin there is a vampire (or for that matter that Thom there was a vampire; I certainly didn't see any fangs). And there's been no specific mention of DC by name on The Lair. If you pay attention to the production history, you would know that initially TL was planned as a direct spin-off of DC and was going to be called Dante's Lair, but that idea was scrapped. So, again, in the absence of a reliable source stating that the two characters are the same, speculation that they are the same is original research. Otto4711 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Transamerican Love Story

Thanks for all your excellent work on this article! For additional references, you can find a list of published reviews and articles on the series here. Jokestress (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nesting project banners

{{helpme}} Trying to set it up so that the default is to hide the project banners on Talk:Barry Winchell to tidy up the page a bit. Not sure what I'm missing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. The required "nested=" parameter is "yes" rather than "y". Best, Gr1st (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

on GA status for Boys in the Sand. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alias edits

Hi. That the same happened in Lost, Prison Break, Jericho, Once Were Warriors characters to name some. Check for example here and here. Of course they were more discussions but I can't find them right now. If a character is "dead" or "alive" depends on which episode you are watching. In Infoboxes we want to give a general overview of the character. I checked more 100 infoboxes in the last two days and I strongly believe that Alias was the last with the status still around. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Hill Cemetary CFD

I had typed the following to the close here, but I'd probably get yarked at for being disruptive and reminded that WP isn't a soapbox. Just needed to vent.

Sorry, Otto, but you lose. It's been proven that consensus (which we all know too many people define as "vote-counting") trumps EVERYTHING. There is no policy, guideline, or decree that you can use in their argument if the majority of people don't agree with you. A close against consensus, even if backed up by policy (even one of the five pillars), will get overturned at DRV by a chorus of "overturn, there was no consensus to delete". It doesn't matter if the subject of the articles here aren't notable for being in a certain cemetery or even if it hasn't been verified, a majority of keepers rules the day. --Kbdank71 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but you are flat-out wrong. Consensus does not and can not trump policy. A hundred people clamoring in favor of an article or category that fails a policy should not prevail over the policy violation and too many administrators either fail or refuse to recognize this. Not a single person refuted a single argument that I made and closes are supposed to be about the strength of the arguments, not how many people pop in with "me too" comments. It again saddens me that a close has been influenced by the closing admin's fear of being overturned at DRV and that sadness is matched by the knowledge that a DRV close would overturn a policy-based deletion because of those same people flocking there and squawking "me too" again. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"...factual correctness"

If you're going to revert an edit, please have a reason that applies. There are many reasons you might want to undo that edit—it might even be something as simple as that you thought the prior version flowed better (though it didn't), but saying that you "restored information to factual correctness" when my change was purely stylistic, with no changes whatever to the facts which were all retained, is pretextual. Your second reversion is understandable but incorrect. I looked at the source material, and added more facts from the same page of Dyer's book, so I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself on that one. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your change was not purely stylistic. Your revision placed the year of Celebrity Billiards at 1967 and sourced it to this source. The source does not say that the show debuted in 1967. You also removed the reference to Hustles the Pros debuting in 1967 despite there being a source confirming it. That is what I mean by factual correctness. If you have a source that verifies that Celebrity Billiards debuted in 1967 then please add it, otherwise don't change the dates and incorrectly source them. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Article on The Hustler

I had a question/suggestion about The Hustler (film) and wanted to check with you because you're a primary editor and added the section in question.

It's been my general experience with articles on works of fiction that, while "Wikipedia contains spoilers", major plot twists are documented in the plot section but not in the lead (so, e.g., a reader can use the synopsis to help understand a movie plot as it's unfolding), and it seems to me that removing the last sentence of the first paragraph would improve the article without eliminating information. Your opinion? -- Chrylis (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't think it was a problem as written but considering the level of anger a previous editor expressed about it, I have reworded the last sentence to read "...after paying a terrible personal price." That conceals the plot point of Sarah's death while still imparting that Eddie's victory came at a cost. Otto4711 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that the new wording is a very good balance between vagueness and revealing too much. After all, a reader can always scroll down to read the whole synopsis but can't unread the spoiler. (I actually preferred having the spoiler warning for non-plot sections, but it seems consensus went the other way.) Thanks for the update. Chrylis (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland

Hello Otto

First I want to congratulate you on what you have done for the Judy Garland article- it is fantastic that is now a FA status. It is a very informative article and is in my opinion one of the best biographies on Wikipedia. Although, as discussed before I feel that her ancestry is an interesting element but agree not really 'important' to her career or achievements. However I do believe that all of us are influenced by our ancestry and culture that we are raised in or idnetify with through family connections and anthropologists tend to agree that our genetic make-up does infulence many things including how we look, how we act, our health etc. and although Garland certainly was an American and by accounts very patriotic one, she did often mention her Irish roots and occasionally her Scottish roots. Ancestry is related to new inroads into science and DNA studies etc. and genealogy is a fascinating and increasingly popular subject. There is so much available on Garland's history and it is very interesting in that it demonstrates the ethos of America and she was like all Americans the product of many generations of hard working people who helped build the United States from the earliest times.

To that end I have created a Judy garland ancestry article. At some stage when it is complete I would like to link it to the main article but only if you are agreeable. I would appreciate some help in referencing the article and would like to rely on the original section that was fairly well referenced the main sources were: Gerald Frank's Book - JUDY , Rita Piro's Book, The Golden Years, The Marable family Website and Ancestry.com genealogy of Liza Minnelli.

Any help or advice that you can give re format and references would be greatly appreciated. Overall I think the article is fairly well written but could be more concise. I would like the article to have a picture but am crap at that aspect and never understand all the copyright issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vono (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have moved the article to Judy Garland ancestry to correct the capitalization. I have no issue with linking it to her article, with the see also section probably being the best place for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have linked the ancestry article to the main Judy Garland article - I hope to 'tighten' it up over time. Thanks 82.0.104.72 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Otto - a Deletion Template was placed on the Judy Garland Ancestry article with the reason "Wikipedia is not a genealogical databse". I have deleted this template and have replied on the discussion page and on the editor's talk page but am concerned that they may delete the article. I don't think the article is listed in teh Articles for Deletion category but am not sure. I do not feel that the article is in any way a "genealogical database" it is an article like thousands of others on wikipedia that provides information and discusses an aspect of Garland's persona/life that is as relevant as any others attached to her and I believe that it should remain and continue to be linked to the main article through the 'see also' section as it currently is. Can you give your opinion on this? The article is referenced and provides more information than simply a 'database' that is virtually a list. If the article is outside Wikipedia rules than certainly I would agree that it should go; but I do not feel that it is. Any assistance to ensure that it is not deleted would be appreciated.Vono (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Otto

Thanks for catching Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution as a re-creation under another name. Sometimes it's tricky to catch those when editors have changed the wording... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, those pesky editors can be a wily bunch. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy CFR

Not at all. The thought of taking it as a criticism had not even entered my mind, I assure you. Good catch! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding wikiquote template

{{helpme}} I can't suss how to add the wikiquote template. I'm trying to add it to Dorothy Parker. Otto4711 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's already a wikiquote link at the very bottom of the page. xenocidic (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So there is. I didn't scroll all the way to the end. Thanks anyway, sorry to be a bother. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. xenocidic (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland

The pagemove is fine with me. I wasn't aware that a discussion had taken place regarding the title of such pages. It seemed improper to not include "a" before "gay icon". Furthermore, please assume good faith. Don't start talking about 3RR when I haven't even done anything remotely close to edit or move-warring. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

c-class

it's a new class that just got voted in a few days ago. some templates can take it but you're right that it hasn't been written into/accepted into some of the project quality scales yet. [1] Tom (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota Fats

Wouldn't it make more sense to move Rudolf's page to Minnesota Fats and leave a hatnote, since the fictional player doesn't have a page, thus making the dab page pointless? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

Good work on additions to José Sarria, authoring Black Cat Bar, et cetera. Keep up the good work. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's been a pleasure learning more about them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

José Sarria

Hi,

Thanks for picking up the removal of the accent at José Sarria. I have reported this as a bug with a section of the AWB code. You also made a comment bare years should not be wikified but you wikified the years. Can you clarify the mismatch between your statement and your edit? Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, who knows, I was probably drunk at the time. Otto4711 (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Drunken editing is a fine tradition amongst Wikipedians. I have taken the liberty of delinking the years again. I hope that is how you like it, if not just revert it again, I won't mind. Keep up the good work (and the good living!). Lightmouse (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT must be used without accent for sorting. Please read instructions in template's page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just copying: Letters with accents or diacritics should generally be avoided in sort keys, because they are sorted incorrectly by the Mediawiki software. For example, the software sorts "á" after "z", which is not correct in any language. For this reason, articles with accented characters in the title will almost certainly require an explicit sort key instead of relying on the default "sort by article title" behavior. For example, the article about the Hungarian town of Ács uses Acs as its sort key. Remember that sort keys are not displayed, so the article title will still show up with the correct spelling in the category page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Column widths

{{helpme}} I am trying to get List of Judy Garland awards and honors promoted to Featured List and the current stumbling block is that reviewers want the various tables to be the same width. I don't know how to change column widths. Any instruction would be most appreciated. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ! width="xx"|Header text instead of just !Header text . I think. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and worked some work on it. The widths I used look okay to me, but of course may need to be tweaked; if nothing else, the formatting should be pretty obvious for now. Was also looking for an "inducted" template, similar to {{won}} and {{nom}}, and found {{included}}, which I'll add in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to AfD

You may be interested in some changes to AfD being proposed here. I know this is out of the blue (sorry about the last time I did this, BTW, I was going nuts), but I really think this is up your alley. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire cat

Would something like this example, where the author writes that the Cheshire cat and other characters "have become inextricable parts of our popular culture," be enough to consider at least a redirect with restoration of the edit history, i.e. to show that the claim of the article being original research by suggesting that the Cheshire cat had an influence on popular culture has in fact made by other authors? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the article is OR or not, the point still stands that the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" has not itself been the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources and thus does not pass notability guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't Category:Whitewater rivers of North America been nominated for Listify or Deletion

Otto4711 - I enjoyed your participation in the category deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_22#Category:Fly_Fishing_Waters. The Listify decision is proving to be extremely useful. I am curious though as to why the category Category:Whitewater rivers of North America hasn't been nominated for the same treatment. Your logic and the others who participated in the Fly fishing debate would seem to apply equally to this category. I am an inclusionist and do not feel comfortable nomininating any WP content for deletion. Nor do I want to seem like I am making a WP:POINT but I stumbled on this whitewater category and was a bit surprised it has existed since 2006 in light of the rationale you provided for the fly fishing category. ????--Mike Cline (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Rudolf Wanderone Jr.

Hi! I've reviewed the article on Rudolf Wanderone Jr. It is very well written, however I am left a little confused about the "feud" Wanderone had with Willi Mosconi, especially as it appears to have been a significant part of his career. If you could clarify this for me, that would be helpful. As such, I have placed the GA nom on hold. Thanks, Resolute 03:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I have passed the article. Congratulations. Resolute 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a pleasant GA experience. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian porn CFD

I'm a little confused by your close as delete. It looks like no consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Several in the discussion noted their concerns.

One clear point that several made was that it (and its parent) were poorly named (including your comments), and as such the inclusion criteria was vague at best.

And as categories are intended as navigation, and (as you also have noted previously in other noms) we attempt clarity in naming (among other reasons) to help be proactive with (not WP:BITE) well-meaning editors. As such the nominator's point about the name causing the criteria to be "too vague" (which others supported) was well-taken.

And while your point: "Lesbian pornography" does not equal "Pornography marketed to straight men that includes girl-on-girl action as a warm-up act to the 'real thing'." - is well taken, unfortunately not everyone understands that distinction (as was clear by several commenters in the discussion). And User:Mayalld's comment was also well taken concerning WP:POV. Just because there are those that may wish a term to be narrowly defined, doesn't mean that that is how "most people commonly" define it. (WP:NC(CN))

As an aside, User:Iamcuriousblue's comments seemed to be a nice "summary" of the discussion: If "kept", it still would need a rename, and also need a determination as to whom should actually be in it once such criteria is set; else it should be deleted.

Another way to explain it might be: "should be interpreted" didn't have as much weight as "would be interpreted".

There was more to it than that, but that's the basics of it.

Incidentally (since I think this is probably the logical "next question"). I don't feel that my closure precludes the creation of a category with a new, more clear, name which would indicate "more clear inclusion criteria". "More clear inclusion criteria" being the key. A new, but still similarly vaguely named category, should probably be deleted as a re-creation, per my reading of G4.

I hope this helps. If you would like further clarification, please feel free to ask. - jc37 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. One clarification of my own is that the reason I think the "appearing in" name format is silly is based in the arguments that got it renamed from the much more straightforward "gay porn stars" or whatever it was, that people would think that "gay" modified the word "stars" rather than "porn" and thus violate WP:BLP. I find that argument spurious, since AFAIK it's no longer considered defamatory by default to call someone gay. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Extras

I have undone your pagemove. The correct title per MOS is Characters of Extras (see also e.g. Characters of Lost. There is no need (it is in fact discouraged) to place a title indicator in brackets unless the title would become ambiguous due to another article. user:Everyme 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Mad Men episodes

Hello there. I don't know if you watch the show (check it out, it's fairly good), but the second season is starting in one week (on July 27). I expanded most of Mad Men about a year ago when it first premiered, and before season 2 rolls around I'm going to improve the article.

Part of my plan is to move the current season 1 episode list to the list page that has since been deleted/redirected. To replace it, I'm preparing a prose "only discussing the important plot elements for [the] season [...] that steered the course of characters lives, or the course of the show", as described by WP:MOSTV.

I hadn't kept up with things on the episode list, so it came as a bit of a surprise to me that people were making single episode articles (stubs, really) when there are links to comprehensive pages from AMC already. A season page is supposed to come before a single episode page anyway (and even a season page is unnecessary at this point). I just wanted to give you a heads-up, and ask if you've got any suggestions. Thanks, Cliff smith (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did watch the first season and am looking forward to S2. Since the list article was redirected as the result of an AFD I would suggest taking this discussion to deletion review. I'll admit that I haven't been following the press coverage of Mad Men but before I would support a separate list article I'd want to see some real-world sources that show that there's more to say about the episodes than plot summaries. A big problem with this separate list has also been that it attracts people who add copyvios from the official site so if it does get re-created it will need to be monitored. Otto4711 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. All I'm really proposing is copying the table that's on the main page right now and putting it on the list page; I'll compose a decent lead to go along with it. I think we can worry about short summaries later since we've got links to the official, comprehensive pages from AMC. That notwithstanding, I could keep an eye on it for the second season run. Cliff smith (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so very much!

Thanks very much for the barnstar - it is always quite nice to know that my work is both noticed and appreciated. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams Article

Hello,

As someone involved in reverting my article, I'm sure you're aware that I am unhappy about my Wikipedia article and have been for a long time. I've found that no one at Wikipedia is interested in responding to my rationale for wanting my article pared down to the bare bones minimum in accordance with Wikipedia's own policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and no one seems to care about my concerns or wishes whatsoever. This is not a game to me. Your hobby is impacting my life. I won't bother putting that in all caps, or bold, because there is no internet typeface that can convey this. I have to rely on your ability to empathize and weigh the triviality of my article's value to Wikipedia vs. the impact on my life. The fact that I am at the mercy of strangers is infuriating.

I sincerely hope that none of you are ever in a position remotely similar to mine, in which your core identity is challenged daily in every arena, from the public street to the highest courts. In which your life is chased by a tragic event that everyone is determined to have follow you to your own grave.

Again, I ask, please leave me alone. Please, leave me alone.

Calpernia Addams Calperniaaddams (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm queer. My core identity gets challenged on a daily basis too, so the "my oppression is worse than your oppression" game cuts no ice with me. It is to say the least disingenuous for you to claim that you are harmed by an article that merely collects things that you yourself have freely said in interviews. WP:BLP says in relevant part, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Nothing included in your article is unsourced, nothing in it is not neutral and nothing in it is off-topic. Otto4711 (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You have violated the WP:3RR rule. If you do it again, you will be blocked (I was about to report you, but then found I was required to warn you first). Also, please realize a higher standard is required for sourcing biographies, per WP:BLP. This is a marginally notable private person, so err on the side of caution. I'm not "siding" with User:Calperniaaddams here, and would accept some re-insertion, but only what's properly cited to a reliable source. Also, note, that WP:3RR, has a BLP exception, which means poorly sourced material can be removed without regard to the number of reverts. --Rob (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlie's Angels characters

Otto, you're in the middle of tagging all the Charlie's Angels characters for deletion. These are iconic characters - in about fifteen minutes, I managed to find and add this to the Bosley article alone, using only Google Scholar. These should not be AFD'd, rather tagged for reference improvements. It would be great if you would voluntarily withdraw the nomination. Neıl ☄ 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Otto4711 (nice cologne), I wholeheartedly agree that these articles should not be AFDed. You don't explain your reasons for nomination, making it hard to know how to debate the issue with you. You also ignore the fact that I followed the instructions of your first tag in my removal of it, after editing the article. Those instructions read as such:

"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason."

Why did you use this tag if you're not going to honor its instructions, and aren't going to honor those who do? You ignored my sourcing the various claims to the relevant episodes, and you didn't respond on the article's talk page, you simply re-added a tag which states it should not be removed. What's your deal? Kelly Garrett and the others may be no Sherlock Holmeses, but these iconic characters are hardly non-notable, if inherently less so than a character from literature. And, further to that point, have you read the article? It conveys the campiness, incredulity and redundancy of the situations in which the character found herself, and very appropriately runs a tiny fraction of the Holmes article. Regardless of the appearance of both in the Fictional private investigators category, nobody would read the two and conflate Garrett et al with Holmes. Please either reconsider your nominations or present your case so we have a clue which levels of debate and/or editing would satisfy you. Abrazame (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not remove anything that you added to the article. Check my edit history and the article history. Second, I have laid out my case against the articles at the AFD. It is the responsibility of those who claim the characters are notable to find reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. Otto4711 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting an old problem

Hi. In February you participated in a category discussion concerning Category:Environmental_threats. I just ran across your comments on the matter and must say that you are the sole voice of reason. Unfortunately, this was not enough to stop the rename. I am attempting to revisit the problem here and would appreciate your guidance as I find myself supporting your position. Would you be interested in an informal discussion? Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Discussion venue changed to Category talk:Environmental issues. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review requested

Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Hi, Otto4711! I'm trying to get some editors together to discuss the LGBT People and LGBT Culture categorization schemes. If you have some time, would you stop byWT:LGBT/CAT? Even if you don't have time, would you let me know of anyone you think might be interested in helping out? Many thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Sarr3

You deleted this image stating that it is not appropriate to use an image from a TV series to show what a person from the series looks like. This was not a screen shot from a TV series and it was not included solely to show what the person looks like. It was a still photograph, offered for critical commentary on the first appearance of an association that would grow to become in international philanthropic organization. Please restore the image. Thank you. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You still can't use non-free images of living people on Wikipedia, per item 1 at WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reads "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If you know of a way for me to travel back in time to 1964 and take my own snapshot, please share it with me. No free equivalent is available and no free equivalent can be created. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are using the image as an image of the living person. A free image of that person could reasonably be taken and released under a free license. An image of the person as he appeared in 1964 (or whenever) does not satisfy NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein

Bride of Frankenstein is a Pre-1960 horror film stubs I not Broken you Wikipedia:Good articles cooksi (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Clothing and textile companies CFD

Hello Otto, I assumed you were referring to getting them all to link to the same CFD section -- so I've taken care of all of those links, and now I'm gonna let you take over to organize the CFD section. Btw, there are three other sub-cats that should be part of the same CFD: Belgium, Bulgaria, and Germany. All you have to do when you set up the CFR templates is to add a second piped parameter, using "Clothing and textile companies", and voila! Cgingold (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image not displaying

{{helpme}} I just added an image to José Sarria and it's not displaying. I can't figure out what's wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the plaque, it's displaying fine for me. –xeno (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's displaying for me now too. weird. Thanks though. Otto4711 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland

I was unaware of this until I looked at Barnstable, Massachusetts's page. This might encompass the county though as i'm unaware of Kurt Vonnegut living in town. Typing this did remind me of Jack Kerouac's link to town. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters by occupation

That nom is starting to look like a mess. Unless something changes, it will likely be a result of "no consensus".

So from here, I'd be inetrested in your thoughts as to what you would suggest as a "way forward".

I've responded to your post there, in which I hope I clarified the intent.

What do you think?

And further, what do you think about the idea of categorising fictional characters by intersection with X?

And finally, in your opinion, for this to have achieved consensus, what do you feel I should have done? - jc37 06:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Better here than there

Note: User:Father Goose removed that section previously. You may wish to ask him what his concerns were/are. - jc37 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wanderone

After blowing almost an hour writing a heated response that I was particularly proud of for about 60 seconds until I recalled that this isn't Usenet, I nuked it and posted something that I hope is considerably more productive at Talk:Rudolf Wanderone, Jr.#Moving forward. Also, I may be offline for a day, so if you don't get a response from me to what you have to say there immediately, I'm not ignoring you. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I realize that my now-deleted longwinded reply remains in the edit history of course, so if you feel it necessary to respond to anything in it, my talk page is always open (limited menu after 10 p.m., however). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider CfD vote?

Hello -- I am wondering if you would be willing to reconsider or withdraw your vote for "Delete" regarding Category:Lebanese blogs now that I've created Category:Blogs by country? --Wassermann (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Carnivàle

Hello. About a year ago, you TfDed {{Carnivàle}}, and I as creator of the template later agreed to the deletion. Now, the non-crufty wiki coverage of Carnivàle has grown to five articles, and navigation is getting harder (but just a little). The template would now look like at User:Sgeureka/Carnivàle template. Do you think it would make sense in main space to recreate the template again? Two lists (List of Carnivàle episodes and List of Carnivàle awards and nominations) use SeeAlso sections, which would/could be removed if the template is restored. I am kind of on the edge on this decision and need some outsider input. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest taking it to DRV. I have no feelings about it either way. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JBSshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JBSshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Parked in case text is lost

As seen above, a long and rancorous debate closed with no consensus. The main objection IMHO was that the literature uses the term "fictional film" to mean "a film that is a work of fiction" and that the OED apparently doesn't list "fiction" as having use as an adjective. However, as the main objector himself acknowledged, both the terms "fiction film" and "fictional film" are used in the literature, including my the co-author of the book to which he pointed as definitive. That the OED does or doesn't note contemporary usage of the word "fiction" is not relevant, as common sense tells us that the word is used as an adjective in ordinary English usage. "Fictional" used to mean "contained within a work of fiction" is in widespread if not overwhelming usage across Wikipedia, with no fewer than 5,526 resultsin category names alone. Of particular note is Category:Fictional films, which collects articles on films that exist only within other works of fiction. By contrast, the Category:Fiction structure (including Category:Fiction books, a usage of which the objector claimed never to have heard before) deals with works of fiction. Clearly, maintaining this article at its current title is in conflict with a number of usage conventions within Wikipedia. Moving it resolves the ambiguity, allows for the creation of an article about fictional films should someone care to write one and brings the article in line with how things are done throughout the project.

Requested move

I am trying to open a rename discussion and have no idea why it is not displaying. I have a hunch it's because there is a previous move request discussion on the talk page and that's confusing the template. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)